DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received 11/07/2025, the following objections and rejections have been withdrawn from the previous office action:
Objections to the claims
35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claims 1-6, 8-13, and 16-20
35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 14-15
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20230178795A1, hereafter Nuttall, in view of Foreign Publication WO2019203386A1 (used attached machine translation), hereafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Nuttall discloses a solid-state electrolyte material ([0001] ion conductive ceramic material), comprising,
A ceramic material having a chemical composition of Lia Lab ZrcD1dD2e .... DNnOv, wherein 6.2 ≤ a ≤ 7.2, 2.8 ≤ b ≤ 3.5, 1.2 ≤ c ≤ 2.2, 2.0 ≤ v ≤ 12, and wherein at least one of D1, D2, ..., DN is a metal, N ≥ 0, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.8, 0 ≤ e ≤ 0.8, and 0 ≤ n ≤ 0.8 ([0117] Li6.25La3Zr2Al0.25O12), and wherein the crystalline products of the ceramic material are in clusters under scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) analysis (Fig 14A).
With regard to the process of synthesis of the ceramic material that is present in the claim (“forming a liquid mixture of digitally-controlled stoichiometric amounts of a lithium-containing salt, a lanthanum-containing salt, a zirconium-containing salt, and one or more inorganic metal salts containing one or more metals D1, D2, ..., DN; mixing the liquid mixture with a first gas flow to form a gas-liquid mixture and jetting a mist of the gas-liquid mixture into a power jetting chamber at high speed; drying the gas-liquid mixture for a first reaction time period of less than 20 min to undergo one or more oxidation reactions by delivering a second gas flow of a heated gas and forming a gas-solid mixture inside the power jetting chamber; delivering the gas-solid mixture out of the power jetting chamber obtaining powdered particles of the ceramic material; and annealing the powdered particles for a second reaction time period of more than 2 hours to undergo a dynamic crystallization process in the presence of a third gas flow and form crystalline products”), the examiner notes "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (MPEP 2113 (I)). Furthermore, the present specification does not appear to imply that any additional structure of the product would be associated with the process steps. Thus, because the solid-state electrolyte material is disclosed by Nuttall, the claim is considered met by the prior art.
Nuttall is silent on wherein the clusters are spherical clusters.
In the analogous art of battery electrolyte compositions, Kim discloses a solid state lithium ion battery electrolyte ([0015], [0030]) which, similar to Nuttall ([0117]), is a ceramic lithium based complex (Kim [0030]), wherein that the spherical shape of the solid electrolyte improves the interface between electrode and electrolyte, resulting in improved battery performance ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the shape of the electrolyte clusters to be spherical, as the spherical shape can improve the interface state between the electrode and electrolyte, thereby improving performance, as suggested by Kim.
Regarding claim 2, Nuttall discloses nano-sized particles ([0155] D50 particle size from about 0.3 to about 10 µm), wherein the tap density of the ceramic material is more than 1.0 g/ml ([0159] bulk density of 4.0-6.0g/cm3 – implicit that since density increases from bulk density after compaction, tap density is even higher, and 4.0-6.0g/cm3 is higher than the claimed tap density).
With regard to the process of synthesis of the ceramic material that is present in the claim (“milling the crystalline products of the ceramic material”), the examiner notes "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (MPEP 2113 (I)). Furthermore the present specification does not appear to imply that any additional structure of the product would be associated with the process steps. Thus, because the solid-state electrolyte material is disclosed by Nuttall, the claim is considered met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Nuttall discloses wherein the tap density of the ceramic material is more than 1.4 g/ml ([0159] bulk density of 4.0-6.0g/cm3 – implicit that since density increases from bulk density after compaction, tap density is even higher, and 4.0-6.0g/cm3 is higher than the claimed tap density).
With regard to the process of synthesis of the ceramic material that is present in the claim (“annealing the ceramic material at more than 900 *C at more than 8 hours”), the examiner notes "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (MPEP 2113 (I)). Furthermore the present specification does not appear to imply that any additional structure of the product would be associated with the process steps. Thus, because the solid-state electrolyte material is disclosed by Nuttall, the claim is considered met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 4, with regard to the process of synthesis of the ceramic material that is present in the claim (“wherein the second gas flow contains oxygen and the gas-liquid mixture is dried by delivering the second gas flow having a temperature of 200 0C or higher for less than 10 min”), the examiner notes "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (MPEP 2113 (I)). Furthermore the present specification does not appear to imply that any additional structure of the product would be associated with the process steps. Thus, because the solid-state electrolyte material is disclosed by Nuttall, the claim is considered met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, with regard to the process of synthesis of the ceramic material that is present in the claim (“wherein the powdered particles are annealed in the dynamic crystallization process in the presence of an oxygen gas flow”), the examiner notes "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (MPEP 2113 (I)). Furthermore the present specification does not appear to imply that any additional structure of the product would be associated with the process steps. Thus, because the solid-state electrolyte material is disclosed by Nuttall, the claim is considered met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 6, with regard to the process of synthesis of the ceramic material that is present in the claim (“separating the gas-solid mixture to obtain the powdered particles of the ceramic material”), the examiner notes "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (MPEP 2113 (I)). Furthermore the present specification does not appear to imply that any additional structure of the product would be associated with the process steps. Thus, because the solid-state electrolyte material is disclosed by Nuttall, the claim is considered met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Nuttall discloses wherein the crystalline products as measured by X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis are garnet type ceramic material ([0108]) with a tetragonal structure (table 3, tetragonal).
Regarding claim 9, Nuttall discloses wherein D1, D2, …, DN is Al ([0117]).
Regarding claim 10, Nuttall discloses wherein the ceramic material is Li6.25La3Zr2Al0.25O12 ([0117]).
Regarding claim 11, with regard to the process of synthesis of the ceramic material that is present in the claim (“sintering the crystalline products of the ceramic material at an annealing temperature of 900 *C or higher to further process the ceramic material; and measuring the ionic conductivity of the ceramic material”), the examiner notes "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (MPEP 2113 (I)). Furthermore the present specification does not appear to imply that any additional structure of the product would be associated with the process steps. Thus, because the solid-state electrolyte material is disclosed by Nuttall, the claim is considered met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, Nuttall discloses wherein the SPAN value (D90 – D10)/D50 of the crystalline products after annealing is 0.8 < SPAN ≤ 1.7 ([0157] D99 of 200 µm (D90 would necessarily be at most 200 µm since D90 represents 90% of particles being smaller than the stated diameter, and D99 represents 99% of particles being smaller than the stated diameter, so if 99% of particles are smaller than 200 µm, it is also true that 90% of particles are also smaller than 200 µm); [0156] D10 of 60 µm; [0155] D50 of 150 µm; these numbers evaluate to: (200-60)/150 = 140/150 = 0.93).
Regarding claim 13, Nuttall discloses wherein the SPAN value (D90 – D10)/D50 of the crystalline products after annealing is 0.8 < SPAN ≤ 1.0 ([0157] D99 of 200 µm (D90 would necessarily be at most 200 µm); [0156] D10 of 60 µm; [0155] D50 of 150 µm; these numbers evaluate to: (200-60)/150 = 140/150 = 0.93).
Regarding claim 14, Nuttall discloses the invention as stated above for claim 1.
Nuttall further discloses wherein the D10 of the crystalline products after annealing are at between 3 µm and 10 µm ([0156] from about 1.0 µm to about 10 µm), and the D1 are between 0.1 µm and 3 µm (implicit overlapping range – even if D10 is 1.0 µm, D1 would necessarily encompass a range that is lower than 1.0 µm, since D10 represents 10% of particles being smaller than the stated diameter, and D1 represents 1% of particles being smaller than the stated diameter, so if 10% of particles are smaller than 1 µm, it is also true that 1% of particles are also smaller than 1 µm, overlapping with the claimed 0.1-3µm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Nuttall further discloses that a higher density of the sintered body results in better ionic conductivity due to lower grain boundary resistance ([0018]). The examiner notes that since a finer particle size leads to a higher density product, it is understood that the particle size of the ceramic material is closely connected to its respective ionic conductivity.
Nuttall is silent on wherein the D90 of the crystalline products after annealing are at between 20 µm and 40 µm, and the D99 are between 35 µm and 60 µm.
As the ionic conductivity of the ceramic material is/are variable(s) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the particle size of the ceramic material, with the ionic conductivity increasing as particle size is decreased, the particle size of the ceramic material would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed particle sizes of the crystalline products of the ceramic material cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the particle sizes of the ceramic material in the invention of Nuttall to obtain the desired ionic conductivity of the ceramic material (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 15, Nuttall discloses wherein the D50 of the crystalline products after annealing is between 10 µm and 500 µm ([0155]), which overlaps with the claimed range of between 10 µm and 18 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 16, with regard to the process of synthesis of the ceramic material that is present in the claim (“wherein the lithium-containing salt is selected from a group consisting of lithium sulfate (Li2SO4), lithium nitrate (LiNO3), lithium carbonate (Li2CO3), lithium acetate (LiCH2COO), lithium hydroxide (LiOH), lithium formate (LiCHO2), lithium chloride (LiCI), and combinations thereof”), the examiner notes "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (MPEP 2113 (I)). Furthermore the present specification does not appear to imply that any additional structure of the product would be associated with the process steps. Thus, because the solid-state electrolyte material is disclosed by Nuttall, the claim is considered met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 17, with regard to the process of synthesis of the ceramic material that is present in the claim (“wherein the lithium-containing salt, the lanthanum-containing salt, the zirconium-containing salt, and the one or more inorganic metal salts are of the same type of acid salts”), the examiner notes "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (MPEP 2113 (I)). Furthermore the present specification does not appear to imply that any additional structure of the product would be associated with the process steps. Thus, because the solid-state electrolyte material is disclosed by Nuttall, the claim is considered met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 18, with regard to the process of synthesis of the ceramic material that is present in the claim (“wherein one of the one or more inorganic metal salts is selected from a group consisting of metal sulfate, metal phosphate, metal nitrate, metal carbonate, metal acetate, metal hydroxide, metal halogen compounds, formate, metal chloride, metal bromide, metal iodide, metal fluoride, and combinations thereof”), the examiner notes "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (MPEP 2113 (I)). Furthermore the present specification does not appear to imply that any additional structure of the product would be associated with the process steps. Thus, because the solid-state electrolyte material is disclosed by Nuttall, the claim is considered met by the prior art.
Regarding claim 19, Nuttall discloses a solid-state electrolyte material ([0001] ion conductive ceramic material), comprising,
A ceramic material having a chemical composition of Lia Lab ZrcAldD1e .... DNnOv, wherein 6.2 ≤ a ≤ 7.2, 2.8 ≤ b ≤ 3.5, 1.2 ≤ c ≤ 2.2, 2.0 ≤ v ≤ 12, and wherein at least one of D1, ..., DN is a metal, N ≥ 0, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.8, 0 ≤ e ≤ 0.8, and 0 ≤ n ≤ 0.8 ([0117] Li6.25La3Zr2Al0.25O12), and wherein the crystalline products of the ceramic material are in clusters under scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) analysis (Fig 14A).
With regard to the process of synthesis of the ceramic material that is present in the claim (“forming a liquid mixture of digitally-controlled stoichiometric amounts of a lithium-containing salt, a lanthanum-containing salt, a zirconium-containing salt, and one or more inorganic salts containing one or more metals D1, D2, ..., DN; jetting a mist of the liquid mixture by mixing the liquid mixture with a first gas flow into a power jetting chamber at high speed to form a gas-liquid mixture; drying the gas-liquid mixture for a first reaction time period of less than 20 min to undergo one or more oxidation reactions by delivering a second gas flow of a heated gas and forming a gas-solid mixture inside the power jetting chamber; delivering the gas-solid mixture out of the power jetting chamber obtaining powdered particles of the ceramic material; and annealing the powdered particles for a second reaction time period of more than 2 hours to undergo a dynamic crystallization process in the presence of a third gas flow and form crystalline products”), the examiner notes "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (MPEP 2113 (I)). Furthermore the present specification does not appear to imply that any additional structure of the product would be associated with the process steps. Thus, because the solid-state electrolyte material is disclosed by Nuttall, the claim is considered met by the prior art.
Nuttall is silent on wherein the clusters are spherical clusters.
In the analogous art of battery electrolyte compositions, Kim discloses a solid state lithium ion battery electrolyte ([0015], [0030]) which, similar to Nuttall ([0117]), is a ceramic lithium based complex (Kim [0030]), wherein that the spherical shape of the solid electrolyte improves the interface between electrode and electrolyte, resulting in improved battery performance ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the shape of the electrolyte clusters to be spherical, as the spherical shape can improve the interface state between the electrode and electrolyte, thereby improving performance, as suggested by Kim.
Regarding claim 20, Nuttall discloses wherein the ceramic material is Li6.25La3Zr2Al0.25O12 ([0117]).
Claim(s) 7 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US20230178795A1, hereafter Nuttall, in view of Foreign Publication WO2019203386A1, hereafter Kim, as stated above for claim 1, and further in view of Published Application US20220140387A1, hereafter Schuhmacher.
Regarding claim 7, Nuttall discloses wherein the crystalline products as measured by X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis are garnet type ceramic material with a cubic structure ([0108] cubic garnet).
Nuttall discloses the LLZO material has a high ionic conductivity ([0203]), but is silent to a specific value, including the value being larger than 10-4 S per centimeter at 25°C.
In the analogous art of solid state LLZO electrolytes, Schuhmacher discloses a similar LLZO material ([0046-0047] Li7-3x+y′+2y″-z′-2z″Alx 3+La3-y-y′-y″My 3+My′ 2+My″ 1+Zr2-z-z′-z″Mz 4+Mz′ 5+Mz″ 6+O12+/−δ, where x = 0.25, and y’, y’’, z, z’, z’’, and δ are 0) to the Li6.25La3Zr2Al0.25O12 disclosed by Nuttall, where the measured ionic conductivity (σ) is larger than 10-4 per centimeter at 25 °C ([0094] 8.29×10−4 S/cm - 8.23×10−4 S/cm). Schuhmacher further discloses that high ion conductivity facilitates the achievement of good cell performance ([0007]).
As the cell performance is/are variable(s) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte, with the cell performance increasing as the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte is increased, the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ionic conductivity of the electrolyte cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte in the invention of Nuttall to obtain the desired cell performance, such as an ionic conductivity of 8.29×10−4 S/cm - 8.23×10−4 S/cm as disclosed by Schuhmacher (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 21, Nuttall discloses a solid-state electrolyte material ([0001] ion conductive ceramic material), comprising,
a ceramic material having a chemical composition of Li6.25La3Zr2Al0.25O12 ([0117]), and wherein the crystalline products of the ceramic material are in clusters under scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) analysis (Fig 14A), and wherein the crystalline products as measured by X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis are garnet type ceramic material with a cubic structure ([0108]).
Nuttall is silent on wherein the clusters are spherical clusters.
In the analogous art of battery electrolyte compositions, Kim discloses a solid state lithium ion battery electrolyte ([0015], [0030]) which, similar to Nuttall ([0117]), is a ceramic lithium based complex (Kim [0030]), wherein that the spherical shape of the solid electrolyte improves the interface between electrode and electrolyte, resulting in improved battery performance ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the shape of the electrolyte clusters to be spherical, as the spherical shape can improve the interface state between the electrode and electrolyte, thereby improving performance, as suggested by Kim.
Nuttall discloses the LLZO material has a high ionic conductivity ([0203]), but is silent to a specific value, including the value being larger than 10-4 S per centimeter at 25°C.
In the analogous art of solid state LLZO electrolytes, Schuhmacher discloses a similar LLZO material ([0046-0047] Li7-3x+y′+2y″-z′-2z″Alx 3+La3-y-y′-y″My 3+My′ 2+My″ 1+Zr2-z-z′-z″Mz 4+Mz′ 5+Mz″ 6+O12+/−δ, where x = 0.25, and y’, y’’, z, z’, z’’, and δ are 0) to the Li6.25La3Zr2Al0.25O12 disclosed by Nuttall, where the measured ionic conductivity (σ) is larger than 10-4 per centimeter at 25 °C ([0094] 8.29×10−4 S/cm - 8.23×10−4 S/cm). Schuhmacher further discloses that high ion conductivity facilitates the achievement of good cell performance ([0007]).
As the cell performance is/are variable(s) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte, with the cell performance increasing as the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte is increased, the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ionic conductivity of the electrolyte cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte in the invention of Nuttall to obtain the desired cell performance, such as an ionic conductivity of 8.29×10−4 S/cm - 8.23×10−4 S/cm as disclosed by Schuhmacher (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With regard to the process of synthesis of the ceramic material that is present in the claim (“forming a liquid mixture of digitally-controlled stoichiometric amounts of a lithium-containing salt, a lanthanum-containing salt, a zirconium-containing salt, and one or more inorganic salts containing one or more metals D1,D2, ..., DN; jetting a mist of the liquid mixture into a power jetting chamber to be mixed with a first gas flow to form a gas-liquid mixture; drying the lithium-containing salt, the lanthanum-containing salt, the zirconium-containing salt together for a first reaction time period of less than 20 min to undergo one or more oxidation reactions by delivering a second gas flow of a heated gas and form powdered particles of the ceramic material; and annealing the powdered particles for a second reaction time period of more than 2 hours to undergo a dynamic crystallization process in the presence of a third gas flow and form crystalline products of the ceramic material”), the examiner notes "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" (MPEP 2113 (I)). Furthermore the present specification does not appear to imply that any additional structure of the product would be associated with the process steps. Thus, because the solid-state electrolyte material is disclosed by modified Nuttall, the claim is considered met by the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received 11/07/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1, 19, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY HEMINGWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0235. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754